I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[Zongerfield]

Three things, actually.
1. You've continually pointed to how good you are. How you've helped Walt, how you've guided so many people to the Lord. How you've been to church, and so on

TRUE

Now this could be attributed to several things. One of them, the best possible interpretation is that you can't shut up about your love for Christ. That would be great. But if that's the case, why laud yourself so much?

I wouldn't be so crass about it, but that is True as well.

2. You've continually forgiven people who have not asked for forgiveness without telling them how they offended you. This - as stated - seems aloof.

Please read my signature. I've made a concerted effort to clarify my feelings.

3. The doozie. You support Clirus. Supporting someone who wants millions dead is not something a good person does. A good christian would profess the necessity for said person to repent. Especially if said person wants to murder all those people in the name of Christ.

See, what Clirus wants and professes is straight up blasphemy. It reminds me of demonic possession due to it's pure evil. So when you support it... Well... Can you really claim to be a good person?
How is this different from a nazi supporting Hitler's genocides claiming to be a good person because he or she went to church a lot?

It all goes back to Clirus. She is the one that everyone hates. And I can't bring myself to hate her. I'm sorry, I can't. She is a Christian. One who has "extreme" views on some issues, but she is a Christian nonetheless. I cannot jump on the bandwagon of hate-mongering that everyone so gleefully joins, it's against my nature. So, I will refrain from that.

Why not leave her out of the discussion altogether, ask me a question that doesn't involve Clirus, and I will give you an honest answer. From the looks of it, you'd think Clirus and I are inextricably joined.

Prejudice, not entirely valid. The criticism you have received has been given due to how you have acted. Not prior to knowing your position. We have tried to warn you, we have told you how we see your posts.

I understand the criticism, but you do not understand my perspective. Or you do, you just don't care that I have an opinion too.

Yet you persist. You persistently act derisively, you persistently glorify yourself, (which is one thing Jesus criticized the pharisees for) and you consistently try to justify Clirus' position. I cannot see condemning this as prejudice Z. You've painted a clear picture of who you are. It's been pointed out that you've hurt people on here, and instead of apologizing and changing you've continued doing the precise same things. So what are we supposed to think?

Just know that I am a Christian.

But sure, in the interest of knowing you better:
Why do you defend a blasphemer?
Why do you keep talking about how righteous you are?
Why do you not apologize and change when it has been pointed out that you've hurt people?

A. She is a Christian.

A. I love the Lord. If that makes me righteous, then so be it.

A. Who have I hurt? Who has not hurt me?

 

[TheReasoner]

TRUE

I wouldn't be so crass about it, but that is True as well.

So why do you spend more time talking about how righteous you are than you do talking about Jesus?
I'm sorry Zongerfield, I hope I am wrong but that doesn't sound good.

Please read my signature. I've made a concerted effort to clarify my feelings.

Aye. But that's part of the problem. You keep on saying those things when you know how they are taken. Now I might be mistaken here Zongerfield, but that does seem like you're intentionally doing it to hurt others.

It all goes back to Clirus. She is the one that everyone hates.

No. We don't hate her. We hate what she promotes. Huge difference.

And I can't bring myself to hate her.

Good. Nor do I by the way, but what she's saying... Why can't you seem to see that she's a very very serious blasphemer though.

I'm sorry, I can't. She is a Christian.

That's up to the Lord to say, but she isn't exhibiting any of the fruits that come with following the Lord, is she?

One who has "extreme" views on some issues, but she is a Christian nonetheless.

I'm not sure I share your conviction. She promotes killing millions. She promotes values so dark I'm not sure I have ever met anyone else with darker values. Like I said, I used to work with devil worshipers. So I've seen pitch black before. Most of them were decent folk actually. Some though...

I cannot jump on the bandwagon of hate-mongering that everyone so gleefully joins, it's against my nature. So, I will refrain from that.

It doesn't appear to be so Zongerfield. You appear to have jumped onto her bandwagon of hatred and refuse to criticize her blasphemous ways. She's a person as filled with hatred as I have ever met, and... Well, you defend that. So how can you say it is against your nature?

Why not leave her out of the discussion altogether, ask me a question that doesn't involve Clirus, and I will give you an honest answer. From the looks of it, you'd think Clirus and I are inextricably joined.

Well, you DO excuse her genocidal tendencies and appear to claim her position is a valid Christian position. Do you really think the murder of those Christ died to save is valid for a Christian? Do you think her total annihilation wars have any merit whatsoever? Any right to life as an ideological direction in the church?
I don't. Like I said, it sounds demonic.

I understand the criticism, but you do not understand my perspective. Or you do, you just don't care that I have an opinion too.

Maybe I understand your perspective Z, but don't think it has merit. Or even that it is dangerous and harmful. I've put my criticism out there. Whether or not you listen to it *shrug*

A. She is a Christian.

Why doesn't she behave like one then?
Hitler also claimed to follow Christ. Do you think he was a Christian? While it is up to the Lord to judge and not me I doubt it.
And as Clirus promotes much of the same evil, what does that say about her?

A. I love the Lord. If that makes me righteous, then so be it.

Mmmmm..... Zongerfield, you appear to have a certain amount of narcissism too. It has been pointed out here that you're very quick to glorify yourself. Has it not passed your mind that the verses quoted to that effect are valid?

A. Who have I hurt? Who has not hurt me?

SHow me who has hurt you? You keep saying you forgive people, but you don't tell anyone what they have done to hurt you. And you don't seem to acknowledge that you have hurt others. People have told you what it is, specifically. As for me, I am very sad that you appear to condone the blasphemy you appear to condone.



But fine. I'll ask a question that doesn't involve Clirus:
Why do you so often talk about how righteous you are? Do you think it glorifies God? What about Luke 18:9-14? Or Philippians 2:3? To mention two passages out of many. Maybe you don't mean it to be arrogant, but it does come across as it.
Sorry Zongerfield, I don't mean to be unkind, but... I don't like seeing brothers making rather big mistakes. I want my brothers to tell me if they see a mistake I make, and so I do the same to them. In your case... Well, I've pointed out the mistakes I've seen. It should be added that I'm not too good with people so maybe I haven't worded myself ideally. My criticism does stand however Z. Defense of and siding with a blasphemer on the count of the blasphemy is bad. And I haven't mentioned your use of the slanderous words like 'liberal wastrel' which I don't know what you mean by but potentially see as a problematic statement. Of course I have more than a minor problem with certain parts of americonservatism.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Just what I assumed: it's tribalism.

"We can't criticize her! She's one of US!"

 

[Snow Phoenix]

TRUE

Good job completely missing the point of that criticism and turning it around by mining a quote at glorifying yourself with it. Very Christian.

Please read my signature. I've made a concerted effort to clarify my feelings.

And yet you still come off as condescending and aloof. We've told you how we feel about it, and rather than just stop doing it, you've decided to 'define' the words to mean something you think is harmless that they don't really mean. They're condescending and rude, and I think just about everyone here has (politely, may I add) requested you just stop using them.

It all goes back to Clirus. She is the one that everyone hates. And I can't bring myself to hate her. I'm sorry, I can't. She is a Christian. One who has "extreme" views on some issues, but she is a Christian nonetheless. I cannot jump on the bandwagon of hate-mongering that everyone so gleefully joins, it's against my nature. So, I will refrain from that.[/QUOTE

Oh yes, so now you're painting yourself as the Big Man who's not going to 'hate monger' against clirus. Nice way to twist what FG was saying. Nobody 'hates' clirus. She's a human being just like the rest of us, and just as worthy of life. What's worth rebuking is her radical and extreme genocidal views.

You don't have to hate clirus, but just because she professes to be a Christian doesn't mean you should just automatically support her. It reveals a darker side to your thinking and morals.

Why not leave her out of the discussion altogether, ask me a question that doesn't involve Clirus, and I will give you an honest answer. From the looks of it, you'd think Clirus and I are inextricably joined.

Do you or do you not support an escalating system of 3 rebukes followed by execution for 'homosexuals, atheists and liberal wastrels'?

I understand the criticism, but you do not understand my perspective. Or you do, you just don't care that I have an opinion too.

Answer the above question and we'll have our 'understanding' if we've misunderstood anything so far.

Just know that I am a Christian.

Hitler said the same thing. And you know what kind of sickens me? You respond to a criticism about how you're using your Christianity to glorify yourself, and you respond to it... by glorifying yourself!

A. She is a Christian.

So was Hitler. Should you not be rebuking her blasphemous views? Or since she says she's a Christian she's free to believe whatever she wants?

A. I love the Lord. If that makes me righteous, then so be it.

Oh boy, more self glorification. No, 'love of the lord' doesn't make you righteous, you actions towards your fellow man make you righteous; and depending on how you answer that question up there, we'll know if you're righteous or not.

A. Who have I hurt? Who has not hurt me?

You have hurt everyone here with your constant condescension and aloofness. And nobody has hurt you, although your persecution complex would have you believe otherwise.

 

[Nathan Poe]

TRUE

And for what it's worth, we do believe that there is a Walt -- you wouldn't boast about him so much if he were a complete fabrication.

I wouldn't be so crass about it, but that is True as well.

Including the parts about you lauding yourself and your church.

Please read my signature. I've made a concerted effort to clarify my feelings.

It helps, but why not just say "I am not offended"? What's to forgive if there is no offense?

It all goes back to Clirus. She is the one that everyone hates. And I can't bring myself to hate her. I'm sorry, I can't. She is a Christian.

You can bring yourself to disagree with her. You can show her where her views diverge from the Bible. You can take some offense at the notion of all the people she wants executed in the name of her vision of Christianity.

You could, at the very least, forgive her. But you've seen no need to do that, have you?

A. I love the Lord. If that makes me righteous, then so be it.

There's a difference between righteous and self-righteous.

A. Who have I hurt?

Nobody yet.

Who has not hurt me?

Nobody has hurt you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Just what I assumed: it's tribalism.

"We can't criticize her! She's one of US!"

But of course it is -- that's why the rest of us (both non-Christians and Christians not of their "tribe") need to be forgiven.

 

[Charlie V]

Oh, she's a CHRISTIAN. Well, that makes it all DIFFERENT. I suppose then that all of us Christians should get behind her and back her stance that deadbeat dads should be executed.

 

[HosannaHM]

A. I love the Lord. If that makes me righteous, then so be it.

Whoa man. Righteous again? Boldness is one thing but this is directly against the words of Jesus. Humility, Humility, and more of it.

Romans 3:10 says: As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one"

Please take note of the NO ONE RIGHTEOUS

Matthew 23:11-12 says: "The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

And lastly this Proverb is being fulfilled I would say:

Proverbs 11:2 says: "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom."

Tell me Zonger, are you feeling humble, or disgraced by the teachings you have been imposing on this thread?

 

[HosannaHM]

Oh, she's a CHRISTIAN. Well, that makes it all DIFFERENT. I suppose then that all of us Christians should get behind her and back her stance that deadbeat dads should be executed.

Charlie you get the torches, and I'll rally the troops!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Zongerfield, you don't have to "hate" clirus to rebuke her.

 

[Zongerfield]

Genocide is supported in the bible:

When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girga[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deut 7:1-2

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: Deut 20:16

I believe in a literal and inerrant bible. When the Lord tells one (or a group of people - ie the Hebrews) to do something, they better do it.

And, as I've stated before, the US had taken a "genocidal" stance in WWII against the Japanese.

So is what Clirus promotes all that different from what we've seen in scripture, and what we've done as a country in the past?

I don't believe so. I do believe it's a last resort, and not an initial option. But if, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood took control of Egypt and got a hold of nukes and deployed them on Washington DC, NY City, and San Francisco, wouldn't you support the systematic destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood?

I would. I hope this sufficiently answers the Genocide question.

 

[TheReasoner]

Genocide is supported in the bible:

When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girga[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deut 7:1-2

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: Deut 20:16

I believe in a literal and inerrant bible. When the Lord tells one (or a group of people - ie the Hebrews) to do something, they better do it.

And, as I've stated before, the US had taken a "genocidal" stance in WWII against the Japanese.

So is what Clirus promotes all that different from what we've seen in scripture, and what we've done as a country in the past?

I don't believe so. I do believe it's a last resort, and not an initial option. But if, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood took control of Egypt and got a hold of nukes and deployed them on Washington DC, NY City, and San Francisco, wouldn't you support the systematic destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood?

I would. I hope this sufficiently answers the Genocide question.

Ah. So you ARE a Clirusian.

Zongerfield, there are a couple of instances in the bible where genocide is ordered specifically by God. These are not a general thing however, Israel didn't have a "license to exterminate" which they could use at their own behest. Which is what apparently both you and Clirus believe the US does. (By the same logic you applied to the Muslim brotherhood, shouldn't Japan have retaliated - with an even more devastating genocidal attack, intending to kill every living US citizen after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
And what of all the other countries wherein the US has wrought great destruction for no reason apart from their own profit? Shouldn't then by your principle your nation burn for it's violent crimes? And if it should (it should, if we follow your principle, make no mistake) then shouldn't you be allowed to retaliate against the atrocities visited on your people as a repayment for your atrocities against them? You see, such actions are not actions and policies we as human beings should ever pick up on behalf of ourselves or on our own initiative.

I'm sure others have harsher words for you. As for me, I am mostly deeply disappointed and grieve that you would embrace such evil, Zongerfield. I should certainly think the verse I quoted holds rather firmly.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Or as Jesus - you know, the guy&God we're supposed to worship - said:
"You have heard it said, `an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not set yourself in violent or revengeful resistance against an evildoer." (Matthew 5:38)
"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)

 

[Skavau]

And, as I've stated before, the US had taken a "genocidal" stance in WWII against the Japanese.

Nonsense. Did the US after Japan had surrendered enter to begin a system of extermination against the survivors? Only if they did could your babble here be remotely true.

So is what Clirus promotes all that different from what we've seen in scripture, and what we've done as a country in the past?

I don't believe so. I do believe it's a last resort, and not an initial option.

Clirus is presenting her genocidal tendencies and ideals as something that should happen now. She has not specified when, or how but only that it should happen. She is directly supporting the execution of all non-conformist atheists that don't adopt the Christian lifestyle. Does that mean that you agree with her and hold that I should be forced, by law to adopt a lifestyle I don't adhere to or die?

 

[Charlie V]

It's not just about genocide.

Clirus advocated executing any male who cannot support his family.

That's not a race, that's just killing people for being poor.

 

[tulc]

Genocide is supported in the bible:

When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girga[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deut 7:1-2

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: Deut 20:16

...and when God appears and tells people to do that you may have a point. But right now? Those scriptures have nothing to do with killing people now. cliris isn't God, you're not Moses, and this isn't Israel.

I believe in a literal and inerrant bible. When the Lord tells one (or a group of people - ie the Hebrews) to do something, they better do it.

So...God told you to kill a bunch of people?

And, as I've stated before, the US had taken a "genocidal" stance in WWII against the Japanese.

So you feel if one group does it, then it's alright for any other group to do so?

So is what Clirus promotes all that different from what we've seen in scripture, and what we've done as a country in the past?

Yes actually it is. She's not God, Moses or the USA.

I don't believe so. I do believe it's a last resort, and not an initial option. But if, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood took control of Egypt and got a hold of nukes and deployed them on Washington DC, NY City, and San Francisco, wouldn't you support the systematic destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood?

No.

I would.

I guess I believe the Bible more then you do then.

I hope this sufficiently answers the Genocide question.

seems pretty clear to me.
tulc(will now consume more coffee)

 

[TheReasoner]

Nonsense. Did the US after Japan had surrendered enter to begin a system of extermination against the survivors? Only if they did could your babble here be remotely true.

Not that I'm supporting what Z says here, but dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians as a show of power is pretty nasty stuff. Blow up some remote mountain as a show of power instead. Civilians though? Not something I condone. At all.
In fact I sort of. Well, you know... Abhor it.

Clirus is presenting her genocidal tendencies and ideals as something that should happen now. She has not specified when, or how but only that it should happen. She is directly supporting the execution of all non-conformist atheists that don't adopt the Christian lifestyle. Does that mean that you agree with her and hold that I should be forced, by law to adopt a lifestyle I don't adhere to or die?

It would appear Z thinks the bible supports [sic.] genocide. Not just that it has occurred, but that it actually supports it. Which to me speaks volumes.

 

[Skavau]

Not that I'm supporting what Z says here, but dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians as a show of power is pretty nasty stuff. Blow up some remote mountain as a show of power instead. Civilians though? Not something I condone. At all.
In fact I sort of. Well, you know... Abhor it.

It is nasty: but it didn't become genocide against the Japanese people.

 

[TheReasoner]

It is nasty: but it didn't become genocide against the Japanese people.

Maybe not. Regardless: Not good. Just wanted to make sure I got that out there. It seems Z thinks it's honkey-dorey.

 

[Charlie V]

If genocide or mass murder is good, then good is bad, bad is good, up is down, left is right, back is forth, and God is the devil.

Charlie

 

[cerad]

If genocide or mass murder is good, then good is bad, bad is good, up is down, left is right, back is forth, and God is the devil.

Charlie

Yep.